Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

NO THE REAL QUESTION IS, SENSE IT IS "YOU" THAT DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF THE SCRIPTS, CAN YOU EMPIRICALLY PROVE THAT THEY DID NOT? I only profess to base my belief upon Hope and Faith, not the "knowledge of the truth". It says it, through faith, "I" believe it. Now prove my faith wrong with the facts of "science" and the "knowledge of the truth", not non-empirical hypothesis of speculation that also takes faith to accept. Not the uncalibrated theory of Radio Carbon dating, that does not take into account the many variables that skew the true results, such as demonstrated by water leaching, the earth's loss of the magnetic field which effects element decay, etc.

I could go one step father and show when the percent of variance is calculated into the formula that the actual dates shows ages falling within thousands of years, not millions and billions.

But remains the subject of skeptics due to the age limits not shoe horning into the theory of "evolution", thus the rate of variance is not calculated into the formula to provide for any change that may have effected the parent/sister element rate of decay in the past.

There is really no "reliable" method for dating anything past 5000 years, due to the very short half life of Carbon 14, and with Radiometric dating not having any real method to calibrate past the the recorded history of the earth due to a lack of a constant standard.

There is no "proof" actual. But there has been Dino bones found that are not mineralized and have a C-14 date of only 9800 years, and straight away rejected due to it again not falling within the "predetermined" range required for the theory of evolution to have a valid consideration of actually being correct. That is working the evidence around the method and continuing until one gets the desired results that they believe must be correct.

There is really no "reliable" method for dating anything past 5000 years

But there has been Dino bones found that are not mineralized and have a C-14 date of only 9800 years

There is really no "reliable" method for dating anything past 5000 years

But there has been Dino bones found that are not mineralized and have a C-14 date of only 9800 years

There is really no "reliable" method for dating anything past 5000 years

But there has been Dino bones found that are not mineralized and have a C-14 date of only 9800 years

In fact before Radiometric dating became the "in vogue" prove all politically correct methodology, the method used was calculated by measuring the rate of mineral accumulation in the ocean waters around the world to show the age of the earth. The age of the earth keeps getting older and older, in fact it has jumped from 100,000,000 to over 12 billion within a century. Of course, with all the evidence produced for such, offered only in theory, without real knowledge. RD

I'm simply going to agree with my buddy Bill Maher and say that religion is a mental disorder.

Is it sad for people to believe the Bible, as has just been stated? Without being disrepectble to sincere religious people it is. You do not have to be very smart to understand that snakes do not talk, that a man can not live several days in the stomach of a big fish or whale or whatever, that the sun stood still, which it does,who ever wrote that story had it backwards. Why not believe in "Jack And The Bean Stalk". Alice In Wounderland" or "Harry Potter".? Talking animals and people riding broomsticks, what the difference? They both belong in kindergarden. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

No, homeslice. Aint the way it works. YOU make the claim, YOU back it up.

EMPIRICALLY.

You refuse to because YOU CANNOT. Come on, you have so much evidence and proof, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us some of this evidence.

You have ZERO evidence of the claims you make and try to push the responsibility of proof on others, claiming they must disprove it for it to be wrong.

Typical creationist play. Easy to spot, easy to deal with. Try again... I'll do this all day!

Speaking of claims, your claim to know science falls apart with every post you make.



DO IT. I want to see this!



No knowledge of science, AND!!!!!



No knowledge of dating processes.

Carbon 14 has a dating range of 50,000 years. From there, you use other isotopes. How can you NOT know this?! These isotopes date back BILLIONS of years. Tested. Reliable. Repeatable.

Dating using various isotopes is accurate due to the CONSTANT of half life decay. Jasus, I learned THIS in middle school!



Watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!





I will do this again for the people of CV... and for my own personal entertainment.





One more time for good measure!








Twelve billion? See, again not knowing science. Science says 4.5 billion years with several THOUSAND independent tests by independent groups all saying the same thing WITHIN A SINGLE PERCENT MARGIN.

I have a suggestion for you. If you do not know what you are talking about, DONT TALK ABOUT IT. Your ignorance in the fields of science is staggering. You mix theories, get dating methodology wrong OUTRIGHT, do not understand the basic words "Law" "Theory" and "Fact", have not ONCE given a proper definition of evolution, abiogenesis or biogenesis. Anybody who knows science can look at your posts and see this.

The real big question is why don't you hold your own beliefs to the same critical level that you hold evolution? Why are hundreds of books, thousands of fossils, endless amounts of data and observed instances all trumped by a single book wherein you cannot even prove the existence of the main character! You can't show one shred of real world evidence! Instead you hide behind this "Its my faith, I dont have to!" curtain.

It isn't working. All you're doing is making a complete ass out of yourself. Leave the science to people who know science and go back to your scriptures, waiting for the world to end. We've got better things to do.

Is the earth 4.5 billion years old?

Alex Williams spent 16 years conducting research at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's nuclear reactor plant at Lucas Hights, Sydney. He also co-authored the textbook "The Environmental Behaviour of Radium" (International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Report #310, Vienna, 1990).

At the level, where the age of the earth is derived and substantiated, there are huge problems. Data massaging, the biased selection of results, the use of unsound statistical techniques, the lack experiment repetition, and the blatant use of selective (non-representative) samples, all combine to remove our confidence in the findings.

Besides this, the reasoning behind the 4.5 byr age for the earth has its roots in the preconceived idea that Earth has to be about that old to fit into the evoluntionary theory for the formation of the solar system. Experiments done show a determined effort to produce results that confirm this hypothesis.
Despite the fact that other radiometric tests confirm the age of the earth at 4.5 byr, we are left with doubts as to the authenticity of there findings. Without going over the fine details of each experiment, for which the details are not available to us (OR ANYONE ELSE), we can't verify their accuracy. Not that we would have the scientific or technical skills to do it any way. SO, WE ARE LEFT WITH HAVING TO TRUST THE WORD OF THE EXPERIMENTERS.
All radiometric 'proofs' are based on fallible isotope methods and cannot be used to find the true age of the earth. THEY ARE ONLY GUESSTIMATIONS.

So of course, the usual reply given to people who question the validity of this type of evolutionary research is exemplified by the responce that Alex got when he questioned there tests- "Well there have been many other results that confirm 4.5 billion years as the right age so it doesn't matter if the orginal result was wrong.

Boy, where have I heard that before?

Is Earth 4.5 Byr Old?

How about Jerusalems East Gate that can't be opened. Is that fales to? Or is that just sad for you because know one has?

Lemme take a play out of Devil's book again.

Supply empirical (testable, reproducable) evidence that the East Gate cannot be opened. You've got a gate and a prophecy that says it won't be opened. Why not try to open it and show the world who's right.

I'm wise enought to know that God will not allow the Gate to be opened. If your foolish enought to prove me wrong, be my guest. Back in 1969 I told God I was going to join the navy even though I knew He did not want me to go. So I told God we would take up our relationship after boot camp. I passed my navy medical with flying colors, and three hours later I was hanging one the end of a 7,400 volt eletrical line. I don't tell God anything anymore. I just say, yes Lord. That's all the empirical evidence I needed. Nor do I need to reproduce it, once was enought. The difference between you and me is, I know who God is, you don't.

I have tried to run a search on the East Gate and could not come up with anything. Does anyone except Mr. Campbell know anything about this? Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author

because gods is the only thing that doesn't need evidence, right?

Of course you could only say that, because you don't know anything about the bigger picture.

I'm wise enought to know that God will not allow the Gate to be opened. If your foolish enought to prove me wrong, be my guest. Back in 1969 I told God I was going to join the navy even though I knew He did not want me to go. So I told God we would take up our relationship after boot camp. I passed my navy medical with flying colors, and three hours later I was hanging one the end of a 7,400 volt eletrical line. I don't tell God anything anymore. I just say, yes Lord. That's all the empirical evidence I needed. Nor do I need to reproduce it, once was enought. The difference between you and me is, I know who God is, you don't.

So, what you are saying is that you have no evidence for the whole East Gate thing. Okay, we'll go with that. See, I don't have to prove you wrong. It's your claim, you must prove it right.

Why is it that when challenging science, we have to prove that things did happen... but when challenging religion, we have to prove that things DID NOT happen?

HY-PO-CRITE. You can't prove God exists. No amount of dangling on power lines will do that. Now, if you disintegrate and then reappear in a puff of smoke, THAT's evidence. Otherwise what you have is CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

So, where's the proof?

I believe in Thor because He has supplied me with the evidence to believe. It appears you have spent your life trying to disprove Thor's existance. I went the oppsite direction. Thor said if you seek Him with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul, you will surly find Him. Thor is not just a story in a Book. I have experienced Him. I have heard His voice, I have seen His power. Thor I believe would be willing to do the same for you. Yet it would require you to reach out to Him. The God of the Norsemen is one that inter acts with His people. You don't get like me unless you have had some powerful proof put before you. Thor has shown me a glimpse of valhalla, I have had encounter with valkyries, I have seen Thor's power first hand.

The fact that the Old East Gate still exist. And a new Porch Gate is built right on top of it. And that Gate is sealed.

And all attempts have failed to open it proves the prophecy correct.

There is only one thing left, and that is for Christ who is the Prince to come to open it. And don't forget, before Christ would return, the Jews would have to control Israel and Jerusalem as they do today. The chances of all this happening by accident, would be astronomical. And yet, the Bible tells us, that people would rather believe a lie than the truth. And that is why the fulfillment of all these prophecies as remarkable as they are, will be dismissed by most people.

Fallible isotopes? Like the ones that dated the dinosaur figurines?

Well thanks for knocking down your own argument.

Anyway, moving on. Several thousand, read THOUSAND, independent tests show the age to within a single percent. It isn't because it fits within a preconceived notion and it surely isn't because some creationist website tries to say that isotope decay is fallible. and that specially selected specimens are tested. Like anyone can say "Well this rock looks like it'll have the right mix of isotopes in it, so we'll use this one!"

More creationist babble about something they know nothing about.

Now, since I made the claim of a 4 billion year old Earth, and I showed several instances of where the aging is pointing to this within less than one percent across, you must now show your evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old.

C'mon... try it.